THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARGARITO MEDIAVILLA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Margarito Mediavilla appeals to this court from the judgment of
the Court of First Instance of Iloilo finding him guilty of less serious
physical injuries, and sentencing him to two months and one day arresto mayor
with costs.

In support of his appeal the appellant assigns, the following
alleged errors as committed by the trial court, to wit:

“1. The lower court committed an error in denying the
defendant’s motion for dismissal dated October 18, 1927, which alleged that the
prosecuting attorney was incapacitated to file an information against the
accused in this case.

“2. The lower court committed an error in finding that
Margarito Mediavilla was the one who inflicted and is liable for the injuries of
Clemente Babiera.”

In regard to the first assignment of error, the fact that the
prosecuting attorney filed an information against Clemente Babiera, Justo
Babiera and Dominga Bores, for the murder of Severino Haro, and then another
information for frustrated homicide and less serious physical injuries against
Severino Haro, Margarito Mediavilla and Fermin Proces, because Severino Haro
had fired three shots at Clemente Babiera with his revolver, and because
Margarito Mediavilla had wounded the latter at the base of the little finger of
his right hand, does not disqualify said fiscal from sustaining said
accusations, because the accused in the one are the offended parties in the
other and vice versa, nor does it violate professional ethics which forbids an
attorney to represent conflicting interests, since in both cases the prosecuting
attorney represents the public, or the people of the Philippine Islands, who is
the primary offended party in every crime, as being a violation of its sovereign
will manifested in the law. It was inconsistent to sustain both accusations, as
we have seen in discussing the evidence in case G. R. No. 28871^[1] which is closely
related to the case at bar. This contention is perfectly tenable in case of a
duel, but in a case of unlawful aggression in which one may have acted in
self-defense, or in defense of a stranger.

With respect to the second assignment of error, in the
above-mentioned case we arrived at the conclusion that Clemente Babiera was
aggressor and Severino Haro the victim, and in that case as well as in the
present one, it was conclusively proved that Margarito Mediavilla was in town at
the time when the tragedy was taking place in another distant part, where the
herein defendant-appellant could not have been at the same time. Even on the
hypothesis that Margarito Mediavilla was in the place of the crime, it having
been conclusively proven that Clemente Babiera was the aggressor and Severino
Haro the victim, said Margarito Mediavilla would have been exempt from criminal
liability on the ground of having defended a stranger, unless it appeared that
he acted out of revenge, resentment or some other unlawful motive.

The fact that Clemente Babiera presented himself to the
Constabulary with a small wound at the base of the little finger of his right
hand is not by itself sufficient to prove that he was not the aggressor, and
that he only acted in self-defense, as, if in order to be exempt from military
service there are those who mutilate themselves or cause others to mutilate
them, which is a crime penalized by the Penal Code, who would not wound himself
slightly in order to escape the gallows or a life penalty?

In consideration of the premises, we are of opinion and so
hold, that the evidence adduced at the trial by the prosecution does not
establish the guilt of the defendant-appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

In virtue whereof, and giving the accused the benefit of the
doubt, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the defendant-appellant
acquitted, with costs de officio. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand,
and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

---

[1] People vs. Babiera, p. 97, post.